Gloria J. Epstein

The appellant rented a truck to transport a machine, which was damaged in a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant sought compensation from the truck lessor's insurer.

The insurer denied coverage, and the motion judge dismissed the action, finding that the policy excluded coverage for property carried in the vehicle.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the direct compensation for property damage provisions under s. 263 of the Insurance Act applied, treating the lessee as a third party.

The court further held that exclusions in the rental agreement and any misrepresentation of the cargo did not limit the appellant's right to recover under the statutory scheme.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order dismissing their motion to add four defendants to an action claiming damages from improper foreclosure orders.

The motion judge found the claims against the proposed defendants were statute-barred under the two-year limitation period, as the appellants knew or ought to have known of their involvement well before the limitation period expired.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, rejecting arguments that a ten-year limitation period applied or that the doctrine of special circumstances permitted adding the parties.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order finding him in civil contempt and sentencing him to 42 days in jail and a $40,000 fine for refusing to answer questions during an examination in aid of execution.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge did not err in refusing an adjournment, that the appellant knew which answers were inadequate, and that continued disobedience of court orders justifies incremental penal sanctions.

The sentence was upheld as reasonable given the appellant's repeated and flagrant disregard for the court's authority.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his action due to his failure to pay six outstanding costs orders totalling approximately $6,000.

At the hearing, the appellant requested an adjournment pending the resolution of other alleged proceedings, which the court denied due to lack of justification.

The appellant then declined to make oral submissions.

The Court of Appeal reviewed his written materials, found no error in the motion judge's decision, and dismissed the appeal, noting the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's claim of impecuniosity.

The respondent was injured in a motor vehicle accident and commenced a court action for accident benefits within the limitation period.

Years later, she commenced an arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) for catastrophic impairment benefits.

The FSCO director's delegate ruled that under s. 281.1(1) of the Insurance Act, a claimant must choose a forum within the two-year limitation period and cannot switch forums after it expires.

The Divisional Court found this decision unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the insurer's appeal, holding that the delegate's interpretation was reasonable and did not place the respondent in an impossible position, as she could still pursue her catastrophic impairment claim within the existing court action.

The plaintiff appealed an order dismissing its action for delay at a status hearing.

The action had not progressed beyond the pleadings stage five years after it was commenced.

The plaintiff failed to comply with a timetable agreed upon at a previous status hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the status hearing judge did not err in considering the entire history of the delay, inferring the defendants' belief that the action was abandoned, and dismissing the action without evidence of actual prejudice to the defendants.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to stay Ontario child support proceedings in favour of proceedings he initiated in France.

The parties had previously agreed in Minutes of Settlement that child support would be determined under the Canadian Federal Child Support Guidelines and that no court should override this agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that France was the clearly more appropriate forum, particularly given the parties' explicit agreement and fresh evidence showing the respondent mother and child were relocating from France to Montreal.

Following an appeal, the intervener Working Families Coalition (Canada) Inc. sought costs of the appeal.

The intervener had been granted leave to intervene before the Divisional Court on the condition that it would not seek costs and no costs would be awarded against it.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the request, finding that the intervener was bound by the original order and that allowing it to seek costs after learning the appeal's outcome would be fundamentally unfair to the appellants.

No costs were awarded to the intervener.

The appellant appealed an order granting his mother, the titled owner, leave to issue a writ of possession requiring him to vacate her home.

The appellant claimed an interest in the home via constructive trust based on oral promises and work he performed, but he had not commenced a counter-application or action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the only issue before the court was the title holder's right to possession, making the appellant's constructive trust evidence irrelevant to the application.

The moving parties brought a motion to quash a motion for leave to appeal from a decision of the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court had previously set aside an order finding a violation of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

The Court of Appeal held that under sections 11(2) and 15 of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, the decision of the Divisional Court is final and there is no right of appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The motion for leave to appeal was quashed.

The appellant father appealed an order requiring him to pay child support arrears, retroactive child support, ongoing child support based on imputed income, and costs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's refusal to rescind arrears, the retroactive support award, and the imputation of income, noting the father's failure to provide adequate income information and his disreputable conduct.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to reduce the post-judgment interest rate on the arrears from 10% to the average rate since 1995, given the dramatic decline in interest rates and the passage of time.

A motion to adduce fresh evidence was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment granted to the respondent bank on a line of credit.

The appellant argued that the bank breached the agreement by making advances without the authorization of both signatories.

The Court of Appeal found the line of credit agreement ambiguous on its face regarding whether 'the Customer' meant one or both signatories.

Concluding that this ambiguity required extrinsic evidence and a trial, the Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the motion for summary judgment.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict in a fatal motor vehicle accident action, arguing the trial judge erred in his instructions on the duty of a driver entering a highway, failed to instruct the jury on the range of damages for loss of guidance, care, and companionship, and that the damages awarded were excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the appellants' failure to object to the jury charge at trial.

The Court held that while the damages awarded were high, they were not so inordinately high as to warrant appellate intervention.

The appellant appealed his sentence after the trial judge rejected a joint submission.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not err in finding the joint submission contrary to the public interest.

However, the trial judge failed to account for the appellant's lesser role compared to his co-accused.

Considering the appellant's lesser role, pre-trial custody, house arrest, and compelling fresh evidence, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to 9 months' imprisonment.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently applied for non-earner benefits after initially returning to work.

The motion judge dismissed her action on summary judgment, concluding that because she was employed at the time of the accident, she could not qualify for non-earner benefits.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, a claimant's employment status at the time of the accident does not automatically render them ineligible for non-earner benefits.

The court found that a claimant who is able to work may still suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, and remitted the matter to the trial court.

The unions sought leave to appeal an order granting super priority to a DIP lender over provincial pension legislation in a CCAA restructuring.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding the proposed appeals lacked sufficient merit.

The court upheld the motion judge's application of the doctrine of paramountcy, agreeing that without the DIP financing and super priority, the objectives of the CCAA would be frustrated and the company would be forced into bankruptcy.

The moving party brought a motion to quash an appeal on the basis that the order under appeal was interlocutory.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the lower court's order did not terminate the responding party's rights to seek injunctive relief or to have a notice of sale declared invalid.

As the order was interlocutory, the appeal was quashed for want of jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed his convictions for producing marijuana and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

Police discovered a marijuana grow operation in an apartment leased to the appellant.

The appellant argued that the trial judge's verdict was unreasonable and that the reasons for judgment were insufficient.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusion was supported by strong circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's rental application and supporting documents.

The Court also held that while the reasons could have been more comprehensive, the basis for the finding was apparent from the record, satisfying the requirements for appellate review.

The appellant appealed her sentence, arguing she was an addict/trafficker rather than trafficking for commercial profit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the sentencing judge to conclude the trafficking activity was undertaken for commercial profit.

The respondent was convicted of seven counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm after a high-speed collision.

The trial judge suspended the passing of sentence and imposed two years' probation and a two-year driving prohibition, relying heavily on the parity principle due to the lenient sentence received by the other driver involved.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in applying the parity principle and failed to adequately reflect general deterrence and denunciation.

A nine-month custodial sentence and a five-year driving prohibition were substituted.